Discourse vs emissions: Analysis of corporate narratives, symbolic practices, and mimicry through LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.01222v1
• Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:26:32 GMT
• Title: Discourse vs emissions: Analysis of corporate narratives, symbolic practices, and mimicry through LLMs
• Abstract summary: This paper develops a multidimensional framework to assess disclosure maturity among 828 U.S.listed firms using large language models (LLMs)<n>Analyses reveal three insights: (1) risk-focused narratives often align with explicit commitments, but quantitative targets remain decoupled from tone; (2) larger and higher-emitting firms disclose more commitments and actions than peers, though inconsistently with quantitative targets; and (3) widespread similarity in disclosure styles suggests mimetic behavior, reducing differentiation and decision usefulness.
• Score: 25.652674188095883
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Climate change has increased demands for transparent and comparable corporate climate disclosures, yet imitation and symbolic reporting often undermine their value. This paper develops a multidimensional framework to assess disclosure maturity among 828 U.S.listed firms using large language models (LLMs) fine-tuned for climate communication. Four classifiers-sentiment, commitment, specificity, and target ambition-extract narrative indicators from sustainability and annual reports, which are linked to firm attributes such as emissions, market capitalization, and sector. Analyses reveal three insights: (1) risk-focused narratives often align with explicit commitments, but quantitative targets (e.g., net-zero pledges) remain decoupled from tone; (2) larger and higher-emitting firms disclose more commitments and actions than peers, though inconsistently with quantitative targets; and (3) widespread similarity in disclosure styles suggests mimetic behavior, reducing differentiation and decision usefulness. These results highlight the value of LLMs for ESG narrative analysis and the need for stronger regulation to connect commitments with verifiable transition strategies.

Related papers

• Greener Than Humans? Environmental Attitudes in Large Language Models [0.21748200848556343]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in sustainability-related decision support, reporting, and public communication.<n>This paper develops a benchmark for evaluating environmental cognition, affect, behavioural and recommendations in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T18:05:53Z)
• It Takes Two: Complementary Self-Distillation for Contextual Integrity in LLMs [73.46918128880786]
  Self-distillation framework that decouples information suppression from task resolution.<n>Self-distillation framework that decouples information suppression from task resolution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T13:57:44Z)
• SKG-Eval: Stateful Evaluation of Multi-Turn Dialogue via Incremental Semantic Knowledge Graphs [0.0]
  SKG-Eval is a quasi-deterministic and interpretable framework that models dialogue as an evolving Semantic Knowledge Graph.<n>We show that SKG-Eval achieves higher correlation with human judgments and substantially improves detection of long-range inconsistencies in extended conversations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-15T21:39:48Z)
• Consistency Analysis of Sentiment Predictions using Syntactic & Semantic Context Assessment Summarization (SSAS) [0.0]
  We present a Syntactic & Semantic Context Assessment Summarization (SSAS) framework for establishing context.<n>Our results show that our SSAS framework is capable of significantly improving data quality, up to 30%, through a combination of noise removal and improvement in the estimation of sentiment prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-16T21:52:11Z)
• Syntactic Framing Fragility: An Audit of Robustness in LLM Ethical Decisions [1.0671844383558033]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in consequential decision-making settings.<n>We study whether LLMs maintain consistent ethical judgments across logically equivalent but syntactically different prompts.<n>We introduce Syntactic Framing Fragility (SFF), a robustness evaluation framework that isolates purely syntactic effects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-27T18:09:34Z)
• MMPersuade: A Dataset and Evaluation Framework for Multimodal Persuasion [73.99171322670772]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are increasingly deployed in domains such as shopping, health, and news.<n> MMPersuade provides a unified framework for systematically studying multimodal persuasion dynamics in LVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-26T17:39:21Z)
• Evaluating the Sensitivity of LLMs to Prior Context [2.377922603550519]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in multi-turn dialogue and other sustained interactive scenarios.<n>We introduce a novel set of benchmarks that vary the volume and nature of prior context to measure sensitivity to contextual variations.<n>Our findings reveal that LLM performance on multiple-choice questions can degrade dramatically in multi-turn interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T16:09:32Z)
• Towards Robust ESG Analysis Against Greenwashing Risks: Aspect-Action Analysis with Cross-Category Generalization [27.060978828050352]
  A3CG is a novel dataset to improve robustness of ESG analysis amid the prevalence of greenwashing.<n>By explicitly linking sustainability aspects with their associated actions, A3CG facilitates a more fine-grained and transparent evaluation of sustainability claims.<n>This ensures robust model performance in aspect-action analysis even when companies change their reports to selectively favor certain sustainability areas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T03:01:08Z)
• Estimating Commonsense Plausibility through Semantic Shifts [66.06254418551737]
  We propose ComPaSS, a novel discriminative framework that quantifies commonsense plausibility by measuring semantic shifts.<n> Evaluations on two types of fine-grained commonsense plausibility estimation tasks show that ComPaSS consistently outperforms baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T06:31:06Z)
• MARS: Benchmarking the Metaphysical Reasoning Abilities of Language Models with a Multi-task Evaluation Dataset [50.36095192314595]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) function as conscious agents with generalizable reasoning capabilities.<n>This ability remains underexplored due to the complexity of modeling infinite possible changes in an event.<n>We introduce the first-ever benchmark, MARS, comprising three tasks corresponding to each step.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-04T08:35:04Z)
• VALOR-EVAL: Holistic Coverage and Faithfulness Evaluation of Large Vision-Language Models [57.43276586087863]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) suffer from hallucination issues, wherein the models generate plausible-sounding but factually incorrect outputs. Existing benchmarks are often limited in scope, focusing mainly on object hallucinations. We introduce a multi-dimensional benchmark covering objects, attributes, and relations, with challenging images selected based on associative biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T04:49:22Z)
• Glitter or Gold? Deriving Structured Insights from Sustainability Reports via Large Language Models [16.231171704561714]
  This study uses Information Extraction (IE) methods to extract structured insights related to ESG aspects from companies' sustainability reports. We then leverage graph-based representations to conduct statistical analyses concerning the extracted insights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T11:34:41Z)
• Semantic Consistency for Assuring Reliability of Large Language Models [9.040736633675136]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable fluency and competence across various natural language tasks.<n>We introduce a general measure of semantic consistency, and formulate multiple versions of this metric to evaluate the performance of various LLMs.<n>We propose a novel prompting strategy, called Ask-to-Choose (A2C), to enhance semantic consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-17T18:11:33Z)
• Simple Linguistic Inferences of Large Language Models (LLMs): Blind Spots and Blinds [59.71218039095155]
  We evaluate language understanding capacities on simple inference tasks that most humans find trivial. We target (i) grammatically-specified entailments, (ii) premises with evidential adverbs of uncertainty, and (iii) monotonicity entailments. The models exhibit moderate to low performance on these evaluation sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:41:09Z)
• Exploring the Trade-off between Plausibility, Change Intensity and Adversarial Power in Counterfactual Explanations using Multi-objective Optimization [73.89239820192894]
  We argue that automated counterfactual generation should regard several aspects of the produced adversarial instances. We present a novel framework for the generation of counterfactual examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T15:02:53Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.